ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated

  • To: Jim Archer <jarcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:53:06 -0400
  • Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, registrars@xxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <20475372.1062785658@[]>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <09a501c37215$26d8adc0$fa05a8c0@TIMRUIZ> <3F55DEFC.2010006@tucows.com> <20475372.1062785658@[]>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030901 Thunderbird/0.2

On 9/5/2003 6:14 PM Jim Archer noted that:

Ross, this is nonsense. Most of the problems in this industry come either from unethical registrars or from resellers, who (1) don't understand what they are doing or (2) don't care what they are doing.

Jim - you are completely correct. The problem with transfers started with one or two large registrars that ignored convention and exploited loopholes within our agreement to the benefit of their on interests - and to the detriment of industry.

The conversation over the last two years has focused on a) what convention actually is and should be and b) what sort of policies we need to have in place in order to ensure that the convention is upheld.

It is fundamentally unfair to punish the smaller companies, who are trying to distinguish themselves from our competitors, because of the unethical acts of our competitors or, frankly, the unethical acts of the resellers of the bigger companies.

More and more, registrars are being told *exactly* how to do business.

The new transfer policy is intended to tell registrars *what* to do - there is some grey area that wanders into *how* territory, but these are procedurally unavoidable.

Rather than dictate how and when we all do something, why don't we hold the unethical agents responsible for their behavior? If the problem is bad apples, then don't throw out the entire bushel.

I couldn't agree more - problem is, the current contracts are just vague enough that this type of behaviour is not only permissible, but actually encouraged. The existing contracts make a mockery of customer choice and domain name portability - and the statistics back this up.

I honestly don't see any other way of getting to a more appropriate state without tightening up regulation and enforcement - it simply isn't possible under the existing deal.




"Around computers it is difficult to find the correct unit of time to measure progress. Some cathedrals took a century to complete. Can you imagine the grandeur and scope of a program that would take as long?"

		- Unknown

Got Blog?

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>